ORDER : 1. This order will dispose of a revision petitions No. 1, 7 and 8 of 1953. 2. Civil Revision No. 1 of 1953 arises out of a suit brought by Zapulal against Kishanlal for account of his dues as a co-sharer in a Jagir village and for the payment of whatever would be found due against Kishanlal. 3. Civil Revision Petitions No. 7 and 8 arise out of two separate suits brought by plaintiff Kishanlal against Zapulal for the recovery of possession of certain lands claimed by plaintiff Kishanlal as his Inam Jirat. 4. During the progress of these three suits, defendant Kishanlal in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1949 submitted an application dated 8-12-1952 for amendment of his pleadings in view of the facts that a date for resumption of Jagirs in accordance with the provisions of Jagirdari Abolition Act had been fixed. He alleged that in view of the declaration aforesaid jurisdiction to determine and decide the disputes between the parties in this case now vests exclusively in the authorities mentioned in the Act and Civil Courts have now no jurisdiction and that either the Jagir Commissioner or the Government was a necessary party to this suit. 5. In Civil Suit No. 21 of 1949 defendant Zapulal submitted an application on the very date for amendment of his written statement alleging that in view of the fact that Madhya Bharat Government had in pursuance of the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Jagirdari Abolition Act Samvat 2008 assumed Jagirs the plaintiff has no longer any right to claim possession and that the Government of Madhya Bharat was a necessary party to the suit. 6. Similar application by Zapulal was submitted in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1949. 7. The application in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1949 was opposed by Zapulal and the applications in the other two suits were opposed by Kishanlal. The trial court passed an order rejecting the applications for amendments on considerations which can be material only when merits of those contentions are to be considered and not for the purpose of considering the propriety of an application for amendment of pleadings. The applications were directed for inclusion of the allegations pertaining to the facts and events which took place subsequent to the filing of the suit and which according to the applicants had a material bearing on the results of the suits. The applications were directed for inclusion of the allegations pertaining to the facts and events which took place subsequent to the filing of the suit and which according to the applicants had a material bearing on the results of the suits. 8. It is now well settled that the Court can take into consideration subsequent events and mould relief and decide matters in view of those events. It is held in - 'Nari Mian v. Ambica Singh', AIR 1917 Cal 716 (A), as follows : "Ordinarily the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stand at the date of its institution. But this principle is not of universal application, and in a long series of decisions .......... the doctrine has been recognised that there are cases where it is incumbent, upon a Court of justice to take notice of events which have happened since the institution of the suit and to mould its decree according to the circumstances as they stand at the time the decree is made. This principle will be applied where it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate, or that it is necessary to base the decision of the Court on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties." This principle is recently applied in cases reported in - 'Meghaji Mohanji v. Anant Pandurang', AIR 1948 Bom 396 (B), and - 'Mandli Prasad v. Ramcharanlal', AIR 1948 Nag 1 (C). 9. The trial court held that it had to consider the merits of this contention and to see as to what bearing the fact of Notification had upon the rights of the parties. 10. This clearly is erroneous. The order of the lower court thus being vitiated by reason of irregularity in not considering the exact point for consideration before it is set aside and the applications for amendment in the three suits submitted by the defendants in those suits are allowed. The defendant is permitted to amend his pleadings on the lines suggested in those applications. 11. Under the circumstances of these cases and in view of the fact that the same parties submitted the applications and opposed similar ones for amendment I leave the parties to bear their costs of these revision applications in all these three cases. The defendant is permitted to amend his pleadings on the lines suggested in those applications. 11. Under the circumstances of these cases and in view of the fact that the same parties submitted the applications and opposed similar ones for amendment I leave the parties to bear their costs of these revision applications in all these three cases. Order accordingly.